And the Secretary of State is.... [Archive] - Debate Policy

jimnyc

12-10-2016, 03:36 PM

Mitt Romney was fired!!! :)

The Secretary of State will be Rex Tillerson. And he's ex-Ceo of Exxon. Just that connection alone will have liberal heads exploding. That aside, I think this is a fantastic choice! I'm out of the loop, as I didn't even know that he was in the loop.

-----

Report: Mitt Romney Fired; Trump Chooses Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson for Secretary of State

President-elect Donald Trump will nominate Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson as his secretary of state, according to two sources close to the transition process speaking to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to the report.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Tillerson was leading the field after former Mayor Rudy Giuliani took his name out of the running for the job. New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman reported that Tillerson was expected to meet with Trump today.

Tillerson is a surprising choice, particularly for establishment political forces who urged Trump to select Mitt Romney for the job. Romney signaled interest in the position, appearing publicly to recant his opposition to the president-elect’s victory.

It also shows that Trump will start fresh with his diplomatic team, rather than selecting a life-long politician. Tillerson has spent his life in the private sector, working with Exxon-Mobil and has business relationships around the world.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/12/10/report-mitt-romney-fired-exxon-ceo-rex-tillerson-secretary-state/

jimnyc

12-10-2016, 03:38 PM

Another, since my first was from Breitbart. :)

-----

Trump to name Exxon CEO Tillerson secretary of state: NBC NEWS

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump is expected to name the chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp (XOM.N) as the country's top diplomat, NBC News reported Saturday.

Exxon chief Rex Tillerson emerged on Friday as Trump's leading candidate for U.S. secretary of state and met with him Saturday morning, a transition official told Reuters.

The transition official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Tillerson, 64, had moved ahead in Trump's deliberations over 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who has met Trump twice, including at a dinner in New York.

As Exxon's CEO, Tillerson oversees operations in more than 50 countries, including Russia.

In 2011, Exxon Mobil signed a deal with Rosneft, Russia's largest state-owned oil company, for joint oil exploration and production. Since then, the companies have formed 10 joint ventures for projects in Russia.

NBC News cited two sources close to the transition team in reporting that Tillerson will be named as secretary of state.

Trump's campaign was not immediately able to confirm the selection.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-secretaryofstate-idUSKBN13Z0P7

aboutime

12-10-2016, 03:42 PM

jimnyc

12-10-2016, 03:46 PM

I hope this is a fact. With Bolton at his side. Everything Obama, and Kerry have done, just to Israel and Bibi will surely improve.
Bolton is hated by Democrats. So that alone, is a STEP UP in the right direction.

It sure seems to be a done deal, the news is everywhere now that I look. I think this is a good pick! I know the democrats say otherwise, and that's cool, and natural of course, but I honestly think this administration is turning out much better than I had anticipated! Still a few that I would have liked get some sort of positions, but life doesn't always work out that way.

aboutime

12-10-2016, 03:51 PM

It sure seems to be a done deal, the news is everywhere now that I look. I think this is a good pick! I know the democrats say otherwise, and that's cool, and natural of course, but I honestly think this administration is turning out much better than I had anticipated! Still a few that I would have liked get some sort of positions, but life doesn't always work out that way.

Jim. We all know. Whenever the Dems DO NOT LIKE any of Trump's picks. That is EXACTLY THE RIGHT PERSON he has chosen.
I'm getting boxes of CRAYONS for a neighbor, across the street. She hasn't spoken to us since November 9th. And it looks like she has bags under her eyes from crying! (not a joke)

pete311

12-10-2016, 04:14 PM

Congrats to Vladimir Putin for nominating Rex Tillerson as Sect.of State.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9530&stc=1

NightTrain

12-10-2016, 04:16 PM

Mittens got trolled! :laugh:

Now he can't very well criticize with the other ankle biters because he's already reversed himself. Brilliant.

Black Diamond

12-10-2016, 04:20 PM

I think the American people deserve to see the boardroom scene. :)

jimnyc

12-10-2016, 04:21 PM

Congrats to Vladimir Putin for nominating Rex Tillerson as Sect.of State.

He has worked with leaders across the globe, every one of them. So the fact that he has worked with Putin is no big deal to me.

But, and this is a serious question - was there anything illegal? Anything underhanded? He obviously needs to be confirmed, and I don't know the guy that well. I'll have to wait for the news to flow out... but not unexpected that liberals will make the connection with Putin.

aboutime

12-10-2016, 04:21 PM

Congrats to Vladimir Putin for nominating Rex Tillerson as Sect.of State.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9530&stc=1

pete. Why don't you contact Putin, and ask to become one of his Propagandists before you volunteer to give up your citizenship as an American Who Hates Yourself, and Your Country?

NightTrain

12-10-2016, 04:41 PM

Congrats to Vladimir Putin for nominating Rex Tillerson as Sect.of State.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=9530&stc=1

Well, Petey, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I guess you and your boyfriend should have been out there pounding the pavement for Hillary instead of pounding....

Nevermind.

aboutime

12-10-2016, 04:53 PM

Well, Petey, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I guess you and your boyfriend should have been out there pounding the pavement for Hillary instead of pounding....

Nevermind.

NightTrain....like, unprotected sex on himself, or his boyfriend? Pounding? That's funny!

jimnyc

12-10-2016, 04:59 PM

I'm just reading now that Tillerson was recommended to Trump by Condi Rice. That's all I need to hear. If he's ok in her book, he's ok in my book. :)

Black Diamond

12-10-2016, 05:06 PM

I'm just reading now that Tillerson was recommended to Trump by Condi Rice. That's all I need to hear. If he's ok in her book, he's ok in my book. :)
She should have recommended herself. I love that woman.

aboutime

12-10-2016, 05:09 PM

She should have recommended herself. I love that woman.

Totally agree. Condi would be my first choice too! But her dream is to become the NFL Commissioner. She loves football, and I wonder how long KAPERNIK would last with her in charge. Wonder if he knows how to shine FLAGPOLES?

gabosaurus

12-10-2016, 05:53 PM

He has worked with leaders across the globe, every one of them. So the fact that he has worked with Putin is no big deal to me.
But, and this is a serious question - was there anything illegal? Anything underhanded? He obviously needs to be confirmed, and I don't know the guy that well. I'll have to wait for the news to flow out... but not unexpected that liberals will make the connection with Putin.

I don't know much about Tillerson, so I can't criticize him. My question is -- how does serving as CEO of an oil company qualify you to be secretary of state? How does making commercial deals help you deal with policy decisions? Particularly in dealing with terrorist organizations?
Tillerson is known to be a long-time friend of Putin and the guy who is head of Russia's state-run oil company. Tillerson opposes U.S. sanctions on Russia because they cut short a major deal that Exxon had negotiated with the Russian company.
Tillerson also favored Russia's invasion of the Ukraine because it would open a new oil deal.

jimnyc

12-10-2016, 06:33 PM

I don't know much about Tillerson, so I can't criticize him. My question is -- how does serving as CEO of an oil company qualify you to be secretary of state? How does making commercial deals help you deal with policy decisions? Particularly in dealing with terrorist organizations?
Tillerson is known to be a long-time friend of Putin and the guy who is head of Russia's state-run oil company. Tillerson opposes U.S. sanctions on Russia because they cut short a major deal that Exxon had negotiated with the Russian company.
Tillerson also favored Russia's invasion of the Ukraine because it would open a new oil deal.

He has an extensive background in negotiating with leaders all across the globe. Granted, he doesn't have the political background... but far too often we have folks with plenty of political experience, and then have barely any experience in dealing with many of these countries.

You're sounding like you're beginning to run with the liberal rhetoric already. Folks need to give these people a chance, not leaning towards conspiracies within hours of the choice being made.

There's nothing wrong with him being business friends with Putin as a result of many negotiations, and that goes for others he deals with in Russia, or any other country. But within hours of him being chosen, you guys are already running around making decisions already based on rhetoric. Seriously - did Tillerson outright state that he favored war in order to get an oil deal?

Elessar

12-10-2016, 06:43 PM

She should have recommended herself. I love that woman.

I cannot argue that in an instant. She is brilliant!

Elessar

12-10-2016, 06:48 PM

jimnyc

12-10-2016, 06:53 PM

I don't know much about Tillerson, so I can't criticize him. My question is -- how does serving as CEO of an oil company qualify you to be secretary of state? How does making commercial deals help you deal with policy decisions? Particularly in dealing with terrorist organizations?
Tillerson is known to be a long-time friend of Putin and the guy who is head of Russia's state-run oil company. Tillerson opposes U.S. sanctions on Russia because they cut short a major deal that Exxon had negotiated with the Russian company.
Tillerson also favored Russia's invasion of the Ukraine because it would open a new oil deal.

Same questions as above, apply them to:

Hillary Clinton. Sure, she was a senator, but how would she be any differently qualified for the above? None.

Warren Christopher - went to the deputy position with nothing but legal background.

Too lazy to go any further, but not unheard of. But if me, I would be looking for someone who has a background of working around the world, and perhaps someone who has dealt with many of these people. Someone who is a leader.

Black Diamond

12-10-2016, 07:18 PM

Same questions as above, apply them to:

Hillary Clinton. Sure, she was a senator, but how would she be any differently qualified for the above? None.

Warren Christopher - went to the deputy position with nothing but legal background.

Too lazy to go any further, but not unheard of. But if me, I would be looking for someone who has a background of working around the world, and perhaps someone who has dealt with many of these people. Someone who is a leader.
Any connection to oil makes the left freak out. You know... Because we went to war with Iraq for oil.

Elessar

12-10-2016, 07:21 PM

Same questions as above, apply them to:

Hillary Clinton. Sure, she was a senator, but how would she be any differently qualified for the above? None.

Hillary...Carpet-bagging junior senator...
Well known for being sanctioned in the Watergate investigation.

Well known for 'facing sniper fire' in Kosovo...When video showed just the opposite'

Well known for her "who would you call at 3 a.m." statement - but did
not reply to calls from our Ambassador or his security staff...for 6 months.

Then there is the E-mail and server crap...blocked by Lynch, Bill C. Comey, and Obama.

Quality person? No frikkin' way.

aboutime

12-10-2016, 07:27 PM

Hillary...Carpet-bagging junior senator...
Well known for being sanctioned in the Watergate investigation.

Well known for 'facing sniper fire' in Kosovo...When video showed just the opposite'

Well known for her "who would you call at 3 a.m." statement - but did
not reply to calls from our Ambassador or his security staff...for 6 months.

Then there is the E-mail and server crap...blocked by Lynch, Bill C. Comey, and Obama.

Quality person? No frikkin' way.

And we shouldn't forget this:
http://youtu.be/cCDzRtZLUkc

gabosaurus

12-10-2016, 10:05 PM

You're sounding like you're beginning to run with the liberal rhetoric already. Folks need to give these people a chance, not leaning towards conspiracies within hours of the choice being made.

Where is the "liberal rhetoric" coming from? I said that I didn't know much about him other than his connections with Putin and Russia. Which is not really a criticism.
Dealing with international business leaders is a lot different than negotiating with politicians. And it is never too good to get in cozy with them. We should have learned that from GW Bush being in bed with the Saudi Royal Family. They financed the 9-11 attacks and Bush covered their tracks.
How can we expect to get tough with Russia if our SOS is worried about multi-billion dollar oil deals?

aboutime

12-10-2016, 10:45 PM

Where is the "liberal rhetoric" coming from? I said that I didn't know much about him other than his connections with Putin and Russia. Which is not really a criticism.
Dealing with international business leaders is a lot different than negotiating with politicians. And it is never too good to get in cozy with them. We should have learned that from GW Bush being in bed with the Saudi Royal Family. They financed the 9-11 attacks and Bush covered their tracks.
How can we expect to get tough with Russia if our SOS is worried about multi-billion dollar oil deals?

gabby. You are so full of your endless, liberal, intolerant leanings. Sounds like you have never heeded this kind of warning...which you ignore to please yourself.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. This has often been attributed to Sun Tzu. Something Obama did....IN REVERSE.

Elessar

12-10-2016, 10:53 PM

Where is the "liberal rhetoric" coming from? I said that I didn't know much about him other than his connections with Putin and Russia. Which is not really a criticism.
Dealing with international business leaders is a lot different than negotiating with politicians. And it is never too good to get in cozy with them. We should have learned that from GW Bush being in bed with the Saudi Royal Family. They financed the 9-11 attacks and Bush covered their tracks.
How can we expect to get tough with Russia if our SOS is worried about multi-billion dollar oil deals?

You are full of crap! It was Bill Clinton who was in bed with the Saudis initially. Bush covered no tracks. Bush
followed the tracks that Bill Clinton made. There were no oil deals there and that has been proven.

Get it straight...9/11 was a failure of Clinton not pulling agencies together. The clues were there
but he could not add 2+2...

He didn't care, so we lost lives...remember the bombings in Africa - the embassies, the USS Cole?
'black hero' is a shame...worthless as tits on a slab of bacon.

All he's done is divide this nation...allowing liberal media and punks to try and take charge.

Noir

12-11-2016, 08:35 AM

Some interesting reading on US/Russian relations (and beyond) regarding oil over the past decade or so.

http://www.kansas.com/latest-news/article1064740.html

Also LOL at the number of Trump supporters who are apparently confused as to why Wikileaks is promoting content not supportive of Trump.

revelarts

12-11-2016, 08:45 AM

He has an extensive background in negotiating with leaders all across the globe.
Yes he's worked with leaders all over the globe, including U.S. congress people and Presidents ....For the benefit of EXXON.
It's work I have NO Reason to believe he'll stop in his new role as Secrecy of State.
Seems to me it's a great time to buy Exxon stock.

You folks might want to review the meaning of the words Oligarchy and Kleptocracy... there are other terms for gov't run by biz interest but i won't go there.

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 10:56 AM

Yes he's worked with leaders all over the globe, including U.S. congress people and Presidents ....For the benefit of EXXON.
It's work I have NO Reason to believe he'll stop in his new role as Secrecy of State.
Seems to me it's a great time to buy Exxon stock.

You folks might want to review the meaning of the words Oligarchy and Kleptocracy... there are other terms for gov't run by biz interest but i won't go there.

Yes, he worked for the benefit of Exxon. And now he'll work for the benefit of the USA. I have NO reason to believe he won't do just that, and an excellent job at that. Assuming he'll do underhanded things for oil, as 2 have now stated, assumes he doesn't play by the book and what not. I've seen no reason to believe he does illegal things or that he'll become a government worker making money for Exxon.

If some want to assume he wants to play a dual role and perhaps dip into illegalities or what not, that's their problem. I'll personally wait until folks do things wrong before condemning them. I have ZERO reason to condemn this man, nor this choice. But seeing others not like it makes me happy. :)

NightTrain

12-11-2016, 11:12 AM

Also LOL at the number of Trump supporters who are apparently confused as to why Wikileaks is promoting content not supportive of Trump.

I guess you haven't figured it out yet, so I'll 'splain it to you, Noir.

Ready? Concentrate really hard on this next :

WikiLeaks is a loose cannon. No one can control Assange and he'll gleefully sink anyone he gets dirt on.

Got that simple concept now, Noir?

Good. Now you are as informed as everyone else on this board on the subject of WikiLeaks.

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 11:15 AM

I guess you haven't figured it out yet, so I'll 'splain it to you, Noir.

Ready? Concentrate really hard on this next :

WikiLeaks is a loose cannon. No one can control Assange and he'll gleefully sink anyone he gets dirt on.

Got that simple concept now, Noir?

Good. Now you are as informed as everyone else on this board on the subject of WikiLeaks.

And hell, who's complaining about Wikileaks posting stuff not helping Trump?

NightTrain

12-11-2016, 11:21 AM

And hell, who's complaining about Wikileaks posting stuff not helping Trump?

Have to admit, reading that caught me off guard and I had to re-read that a couple of times because it didn't make any sense.

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 11:32 AM

Have to admit, reading that caught me off guard and I had to re-read that a couple of times because it didn't make any sense.

I honestly couldn't care much less about them, and certainly not complaining. I peeked around a bunch of stories and did searches, I don't see any massive complaints or anything like that. Noir's probably basing this on a few comments elsewhere.

Yup, they did Trump a HUGE favor during the election, no 2 ways around that one. But I sure as hell never 'supported' them. And it wouldn't be surprising in the slightest if Assange now leaked things about Trump and Putin. He had an angle and wanted Clinton more.

But am I supposed to be upset if he now posts things that aren't supportive of Trump? Nope, don't think so. It's not surprising and was actually a little expected.

NightTrain

12-11-2016, 12:45 PM

I honestly couldn't care much less about them, and certainly not complaining. I peeked around a bunch of stories and did searches, I don't see any massive complaints or anything like that. Noir's probably basing this on a few comments elsewhere.

Yup, they did Trump a HUGE favor during the election, no 2 ways around that one. But I sure as hell never 'supported' them. And it wouldn't be surprising in the slightest if Assange now leaked things about Trump and Putin. He had an angle and wanted Clinton more.

But am I supposed to be upset if he now posts things that aren't supportive of Trump? Nope, don't think so. It's not surprising and was actually a little expected.

No, I was talking about Noir. That was the first time I've seen "Trump supporters mad at Wiki LOLz".

There must be some really off-the-wall crap in the Irish media.

revelarts

12-11-2016, 12:46 PM

Yes, he worked for the benefit of Exxon. And now he'll work for the benefit of the USA. I have NO reason to believe he won't do just that, and an excellent job at that. Assuming he'll do underhanded things for oil, as 2 have now stated, assumes he doesn't play by the book and what not. I've seen no reason to believe he does illegal things or that he'll become a government worker making money for Exxon.

If some want to assume he wants to play a dual role and perhaps dip into illegalities or what not, that's their problem. I'll personally wait until folks do things wrong before condemning them. I have ZERO reason to condemn this man, nor this choice. But seeing others not like it makes me happy. :)

Well Jim I think it's safe to say that you're completely in the tank for Trump no matter what he does.
And somehow you want to assume that any criticism comes from bad motives. but Nothing that Trump does is.
You're welcome to that view. But some of us take heed to the founding father's warnings about power and money and to the general sweep of the history of politics. From there we do note that the CEOs of large multi national corporations tend to manipulate/influence the U.S. gov't... presidents ,congress, Depts, the military, the Fed, ... for the betterment of their MULTI-NATIONAL empires. Not to the concerns of the U.S., the constitution, or the U.S. working man.
Plus I'm not saying he'll do anything "Illegal". Heck In his mind he may think... PROBABLY thinks... that anything good for exxon IS good for America. And the things that he does abroad will help EXXON/AMERICAN interest. As Bush One and Bolton and other conservatives have said "we need the oil".

But it's also fine for you... in pollyanna-ish way... to ASSUME that he'll turn on a dime to focus on Trumps nationalistic goals when his focus has been on very different ones. ..and not to consider what might happen when he LEAVES the Secretary of State post to possible GO BACK to Exxon in some capacity.

Seems to me your Trump love glasses don't allow you to see or remember that historically when Corporations get their executives into various cabinet post and Depts that things tend to begin to go their way. Look up Monsanto Executives and it's revolving door at the Dept of AG.

So I'm not sure why we all shouldn't look at this with some level of VERY REAL skepticism.
And even see this as the MASK of Democratic Rule of the U.S. by the "the people" coming off of the real rulers, the Oligarchs of Multinational corps.

Add to that that Trump partially campaigned on the idea of getting big corporate interest OUT of Washington. but he's appointed people from Goldman Sachs and now Exxon. they are quintessential Big Corporate interest right? Seems clear to me he's not draining the swamp, he's just picking his own alligators and snakes.

But Jim I'm sure none of this will dampen you're unquestioning faith in everything thing Trump says and does but as i've said before I'm at the point where i DO NOT just trust politicians or appointees from the corporate world. we've been burned to many times already.

SaveSave

revelarts

12-11-2016, 12:58 PM

Just a reminder about OIL, that goes along with Noir's link about the U.S. Embassies/State Dept working on behalf of oil interest.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by CNN

<tbody>
Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/)

</tbody>

Bush Sr. was direct
"We need the oil. It's nice to talk about standing up for freedom. But Kuwait and Saudi Arabia aren't exactly democracies."
TIME' magazine , August 20th , 1990

"Bush said extremists controlling Iraq 'would use energy as economic blackmail" and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested that such radicals would be 'able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel.' Oil is not the only reason Bush offers for staying in Iraq, but his comments on the stump represent another striking evolution of his argument on behalf of the war. "
Wash-Post
Bush Says U.S. Pullout Would Let Iraq Radicals Use Oil as a Weapon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401025.html)

Alan Greenspan
"The man once regarded as the world's most powerful banker has bluntly declared that the Iraq war was 'largely' about oil.
Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and retired last year after serving four presidents, Alan Greenspan has been the leading Republican economist for a generation and his utterings instantly moved world markets. In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'"

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said of the Iraq war in 2007:
"People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs."

4 Star General John Abizaid
– the former commander of CENTCOM with responsibility for Iraq – said:
"Of course it’s about oil, it’s very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that."

John McCain said in 2008
"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will — that will then prevent us — that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."

Sarah Palin said in 2008
"Better to start that drilling [for oil within the U.S.] today than wait and continue relying on foreign sources of energy. We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go."

Former Under Secretary of State, John Bolton
"The critical oil and natural gas producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protectour economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available only at very high prices."

So Yeah OIL reason for wars and behind a lot if of U.S. and U.S. State Dept actions.

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 01:02 PM

Well Jim I think it's safe to say that you're completely in the tank for Trump no matter what he does.

And yet NOTHING has happened, under than making a choice, and that means I'm in the tank. :rolleyes: I guess I'm supposed to initially condemn? No thanks, I'll wait and judge based on performance. :laugh:

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 01:04 PM

I knew that when we went into Iraq back in the early 90's that it was starting a few decades of an oil grab!!! :lol:

NightTrain

12-11-2016, 01:15 PM

Rev, I think you're missing the obvious point that Trump's appointees will do what he wants them to do, or they'll get booted.

These aren't some kind of untouchable posts - they answer to Trump and serve at his pleasure.

Plenty of time for conspiracy theories later, but he isn't even in office yet. Take a breath.

revelarts

12-11-2016, 01:30 PM

And yet NOTHING has happened, under than making a choice, and that means I'm in the tank. :rolleyes: I guess I'm supposed to initially condemn? No thanks, I'll wait and judge based on performance. :laugh:

Rev, I think you're missing the obvious point that Trump's appointees will do what he wants them to do, or they'll get booted.

These aren't some kind of untouchable posts - they answer to Trump and serve at his pleasure.

Plenty of time for conspiracy theories later, but he isn't even in office yet. Take a breath.

Look NT please answer these questions for me. please don't dodge them.
If Hillary had won and She appointed the head of the Socialist Party U.S.A. as the Federal Reserve Head, And she appointed the Head of CAIR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American–Islamic_Relations) to the head of Homeland security would you makes some assumptions about what that person MIGHT do, what MIGHT be in their mind. And wonder if they had the best interest of the country in mind? even BEFORE they where seated in office.

Would the fact that they served at Hillary's whim be much of a comfort?

Hillary or Trump either way seems to me the choices of appointees does give us some idea beforehand for good or ill.
You guys are free to ASSUME the best and give every one of Trumps pick the FULL benny of the doubt.
the rest of us will call them as we see them, thanks.

NightTrain

12-11-2016, 01:34 PM

Look NT please answer these questions for me. please don't dodge them.
If Hillary had won and She appointed the head of the Socialist Party U.S.A. as the Federal Reserve Head, And she appointed the Head of CAIR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American–Islamic_Relations) to the head of Homeland security would you makes some assumptions about what that person MIGHT do, what MIGHT be in their mind. And wonder if they had the best interest of the country in mind? even BEFORE they where places in office.

Would the fact that they served at Hillary's whim be much of a comfort?

Hillary or Trump either way seems to me the choices of appointees does give us some idea beforehand for good or ill.
You guys are free to ASSUME the best and give every one of Trumps pick the FULL benny of the doubt.
the rest of us will call them as we see them, thanks.

I don't subscribe to the notion that because someone is successful in the oil industry that it automatically makes them a James Bond Villain.

I have a great deal of time under my belt working for different oil companies setting up and upgrading their networks and know a great many people in the industry. They're regular people. Just like you. Just like me.

revelarts

12-11-2016, 01:44 PM

I don't subscribe to the notion that because someone is successful in the oil industry that it automatically makes them a James Bond Villain.
I have a great deal of time under my belt working for different oil companies setting up and upgrading their networks and know a great many people in the industry. They're regular people. Just like you. Just like me.

Did I say they were James Bond Villains? No. I said that Execs from corps who've been appointed to various gov't post often have worked on behalf of their "former" Corporations or industries... possibly/probably even rationalizing that what's good for the corp is good for AMERICA
:salute:.
And that this and other appointments seems to show the U.S. is more of an oligarchy than a democracy/democratic republic. Something Trump mentioned as Corporations controlling the politicians/Gov't.

But if you want to make my statements out to be more than what they are, Please tell me, isn't it a fact that many serial killers have been considered "regular people" NT?

and BTW you dodged my question.
This one thing i really don't like about trying to talk to guys sometimes.

NightTrain

12-11-2016, 01:58 PM

Did I say they were James Bond Villains? No. I said that Execs from corps who've been appointed to various gov't post often have worked on behalf of their "former" Corporations or industries... possibly/probably even rationalizing that what's good for the corp is good for AMERICA
:salute:.
And that it seems to show the U.S. is more of an oligarchy than a democracy/democratic republic. Something Trump mentioned as Corporations controlling the congress/Gov't.

But if you want to make my statements out to be more than what they are, Please tell me, isn't it a fact that many serial killers have been considered "regular people" NT?

and BTW you dodged my question.
This one thing i really don't like about trying to talk to guys.

Personally, I like the fact that he's appointing successful people. Winners know how to get things done.

We already know what happens when you appoint a nobody community organizer to places of power.

NightTrain

12-11-2016, 02:02 PM

And to answer your question, Rev, of course I wouldn't like ANYONE the silly bitch would have appointed. I'm not sure why you'd even ask that question - do you not know where my values are?

Fortunately, America finally had enough of liberal / social asshattery running amok in our government.

revelarts

12-11-2016, 02:02 PM

Personally, I like the fact that he's appointing successful people. Winners know how to get things done.

We already know what happens when you appoint a nobody community organizer to places of power.
therefore you're willing to ignore the real possibility that some won't be working for the good the U.S. but for the interest of their former corps or maybe even personal gain... or maybe even "nice guys" whose are practically serial killers. And just assume the best.

Since you won't reply directly all i can do is assume based on your lack of direct responses.

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 02:03 PM

Look NT please answer these questions for me. please don't dodge them.
If Hillary had won and She appointed the head of the Socialist Party U.S.A. as the Federal Reserve Head, And she appointed the Head of CAIR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American–Islamic_Relations) to the head of Homeland security would you makes some assumptions about what that person MIGHT do, what MIGHT be in their mind. And wonder if they had the best interest of the country in mind? even BEFORE they where seated in office.

Would the fact that they served at Hillary's whim be much of a comfort?

Hillary or Trump either way seems to me the choices of appointees does give us some idea beforehand for good or ill.
You guys are free to ASSUME the best and give every one of Trumps pick the FULL benny of the doubt.
the rest of us will call them as we see them, thanks.

Initially laugh, then condemn it. Then the best decision would be to wait and see how they actually perform their jobs. This is assuming they go through the nomination process, and there's nothing presented that would make me think twice about their ability to perform the jobs.

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 02:08 PM

I have to add this, and everyone can just ignore. :) The liberals around the internet, on the TV and the rest of the media, seeing their heads explode without good reasoning - once again proves that the correct choices are being made. But the best part is that only a simple majority is needed to confirm these choices. This doesn't mean that some on the right can't vote against.... But I think those that are against the nominations might want to get used to them. :)

NightTrain

12-11-2016, 02:20 PM

therefore you're willing to ignore the real possibility that some won't be working for the good the U.S. but for the interest of their former corps or maybe even personal gain... or maybe even "nice guys" whose are practically serial killers. And just assume the best.

Since you won't reply directly all i can do is assume based on your lack of direct responses.

:rolleyes:

Yes, Rev.

It's also a real possibility that he just may know where Hoffa is buried.

It's also a real possibility that he cheated on a spelling test in the 6th grade, and only Becky Miller knows how it all went down.

It's also a real possibility that monkeys might fly out of his butt.

It's also a real possibility that he illegally removed that tag off his mattress in 1985, contrary to the stern warning on said tag.

It's also a real possibility that it was Tillerson who let the dogs out.

It's also a real possibility that it was the Maid, in the closet, with the candlestick.

It's a certainty that your conspiracy neurosis are getting the best of you again. I know you love conspiracy theories, but a healthy brake-check every now and then would be prudent.

Abbey Marie

12-11-2016, 02:44 PM

He's prob fine, I mean if Hollary can do it , who couldn't?

But I sure would love to see Condi back in there!

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 02:46 PM

But I sure would love to see Condi back in there!

Agreed, would love to see her working with Trump. I wonder what types of accusations would be leveled about her, and what names she would be called?

revelarts

12-11-2016, 03:14 PM

:rolleyes:
Yes, Rev.
It's also a real possibility that he just may know where Hoffa is buried.
It's also a real possibility that he cheated on a spelling test in the 6th grade, and only Becky Miller knows how it all went down.
It's also a real possibility that monkeys might fly out of his butt.
It's also a real possibility that he illegally removed that tag off his mattress in 1985, contrary to the stern warning on said tag.
It's also a real possibility that it was Tillerson who let the dogs out.
It's also a real possibility that it was the Maid, in the closet, with the candlestick.
It's a certainty that your conspiracy neurosis are getting the best of you again. I know you love conspiracy theories, but a healthy brake-check every now and then would be prudent.

A real possibility that someone who works for a corporation/industry might continue to favor that corporation/industry while in a gov't post
is in your mind equal to "the possibility that monkeys might fly out of his butt."?

Didn't know you have gone that far in your denial of reality to fit a disneyland view of politics.
Seems a healthy dose of real history every now and then would be prudent for you.

SaveSave

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 03:20 PM

A real possibility that someone who works for a corporation/industry might continue to favor that corporation/industry while in a gov't post
is in your mind equal to "the possibility that monkeys might fly out of his butt."?

Didn't know you have gone that far in your denial of reality to fit a disneyland view of politics.
Seems a healthy dose of real history every now and then would be prudent for you.

SaveSave

What EXACTLY has this individual done to believe he would do anything other than what is asked of him as SOS? I know you have reservations, simply worried because of his Exxon experience, but I've yet to see anything that shows he is a bad choice, or has done things that show he shouldn't get the position. Or is this still in the thought process and you don't like him as a choice - because of his prior title?

NightTrain

12-11-2016, 03:20 PM

A real possibility that someone who works for a corporation/industry might continue to favor corporation/industry while in a gov't post
is in your mind equal to "the possibility that monkeys might fly out of his butt."?

Didn't know you have gone that far in your denial of reality to fit a disneyland view of politics, seems a healthy dose of real history every now and then would be prudent for you.

Rev, I'm asking this sincerely, with zero snark : Do you ever stop to consider the odd suspicions that pop into your head and ask yourself what the likelihood is of some of the stuff you espouse?

Did you miss the part where all these guys will answer to Trump for any and all actions?

Do you really think that they will implement any policies without his knowledge and approval?

I'm trying to work with you here, but you're hellbent for election to get down that rabbit hole.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

12-11-2016, 03:39 PM

Agreed, would love to see her working with Trump. I wonder what types of accusations would be leveled about her, and what names she would be called?

I would dearly love to see her back. That lady knew her stuff and had courageously bold character.
Which is something the dem party/libs vehemently hate...-Tyr

revelarts

12-11-2016, 03:47 PM

Rev, I'm asking this sincerely, with zero snark : Do you ever stop to consider the odd suspicions that pop into your head and ask yourself what the likelihood is of some of the stuff you espouse?
Did you miss the part where all these guys will answer to Trump for any and all actions?
Do you really think that they will implement any policies without his knowledge and approval?
I'm trying to work with you here, but you're hellbent for election to get down that rabbit hole.

I'll answer each question without snark or assuming you're love struck with Trump, just please reply to my previous questions:

If Hillary had won and She appointed the head of the Socialist Party U.S.A. as the Federal Reserve Head, And she appointed the Head of CAIR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American%E2%80%93Islamic_Relations) to the head of Homeland security would you make some assumptions about what that person MIGHT do, what MIGHT be in their mind. And wonder if they had the best interest of the country in mind? even BEFORE they were seated in office.

Would the fact that they served at Hillary's whim be much of a comfort? Would the the fact that they are GOOD/REGULAR people?
Hillary or Trump either way seems to me the choices of appointees does give us some idea beforehand for good or ill.

Or If those questions are to much please tell me if you are at all familiar with the long history of 'former' corporate employees/exececs who have become gov't officials/appointees and have used the position to favor their industries.

If you can honestly say you're well aware of the MANY cases throughout history and are aware that corporations do influence politicians to a great extent ...as Trump said... then I'm not sure where your incredulity comes from.

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 04:21 PM

NightTrain

12-11-2016, 04:26 PM

I'll answer each question without snark or assuming you're love struck with Trump, just please reply to my previous questions:

If Hillary had won and She appointed the head of the Socialist Party U.S.A. as the Federal Reserve Head, And she appointed the Head of CAIR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_American%E2%80%93Islamic_Relations) to the head of Homeland security would you make some assumptions about what that person MIGHT do, what MIGHT be in their mind. And wonder if they had the best interest of the country in mind? even BEFORE they were seated in office.

Would the fact that they served at Hillary's whim be much of a comfort? Would the the fact that they are GOOD/REGULAR people?
Hillary or Trump either way seems to me the choices of appointees does give us some idea beforehand for good or ill.

Or If those questions are to much please tell me if you are at all familiar with the long history of 'former' corporate employees/exececs who have become gov't officials/appointees and have used the position to favor their industries.

If you can honestly say you're well aware of the MANY cases throughout history and are aware that corporations do influence politicians to a great extent ...as Trump said... then I'm not sure where your incredulity comes from.

I think we're done here.

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 04:33 PM

I think we're done here.

Things will be condemned about Trump, and those he chooses, no matter what, no matter if there's a hint of wrongdoing or not. That's folks LOOKING for things, and then finding things when they don't exist. So then it's time to make retarded analogies to help somehow, which it doesn't. A guy who's done nothing wrong - but once you inject socialism and muslims, it must be bad, and we should then find something wrong with this guy, even if for no reason. :laugh:

NightTrain

12-11-2016, 04:39 PM

Things will be condemned about Trump, and those he chooses, no matter what, no matter if there's a hint of wrongdoing or not. That's folks LOOKING for things, and then finding things when they don't exist. So then it's time to make retarded analogies to help somehow, which it doesn't. A guy who's done nothing wrong - but once you inject socialism and muslims, it must be bad, and we should then find something wrong with this guy, even if for no reason. :laugh:

I expected more of Rev, honestly, because I know he's smart... but the #NeverTrump overrides all logic. A mule hasn't got anything on Rev for stubborn.

revelarts

12-11-2016, 04:46 PM

I think we're done here.

I guess so if you get to unsnarkishly assume my opinion is rabbit hole conspiracy and you refuse to answer my questions. But you'r not willing to have someone assume your position is based on a pollyanna unrealistic view of history.

SO yes if you can't honestly reply then yes we're done.

revelarts

12-11-2016, 05:00 PM

What EXACTLY has this individual done to believe he would do anything other than what is asked of him as SOS? I know you have reservations, simply worried because of his Exxon experience, but I've yet to see anything that shows he is a bad choice, or has done things that show he shouldn't get the position. Or is this still in the thought process and you don't like him as a choice - because of his prior title?

Jim why is it that what he's done ...his experience.. title... shows you he's a 'winner' and 'successful'.
but when i consider what he's done ...his experience.. title... as a potential problem, you wonder why i would come to my conclusions?

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 05:02 PM

I expected more of Rev, honestly, because I know he's smart... but the #NeverTrump overrides all logic. A mule hasn't got anything on Rev for stubborn.

Meh, so be it, I couldn't care less. I think this pick is a good one, and I'm willing to grade him based in his actions and how he performs. I'm not going to condemn a choice just because of where someone worked previously, when there's no wrongdoing that I'm aware of. If some want to be upset and think the WH and the SOS will be gas station attendants raking in billions for them and their friends, so be it. I don't need to help anyone with their being frightened of the land of make believe.

But based on past reading and experiences here on the board, I can only imagine, all the generals and now the oil guy - the pressure within the head can only withstand so much before it explodes, like the psi in a football.

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 05:04 PM

Jim why is it that what he's done ...his experience.. title... shows you he's a 'winner' and 'successful'.
but when i consider what he's done ...his experience.. title... as a potential problem, you wonder how i can come to my conclusions?

He was successful in his position at Exxon.

Where have I stated that he's a winner or anything else? I didn't, that's where. I said he was great at Exxon, that I think this is a great choice, and that I'm willing to wait to grade him at his job - the same as with anyone about to start new jobs in Washington. I'm not looking at things as a potential problem, when there's nothing to base that on.

revelarts

12-11-2016, 05:08 PM

last i checked the head of CAIR has done nothing wrong personally.
the type of org doesn't matter,
and the focus and details of it's work has no bearing on what that person might do in government role.

jimnyc

12-11-2016, 05:13 PM

last i checked the head of CAIR has done nothing wrong personally.
the type of org doesn't matter.

Nope, as I stated earlier, best to wait and see how they perform.

revelarts

12-11-2016, 05:38 PM

I expected more of Rev, honestly, because I know he's smart... but the #NeverTrump overrides all logic. A mule hasn't got anything on Rev for stubborn.
I expect more from you as well NT.
Love of Trump and DP backslapping seems to override logic.

NT here the thing, By DEFAULT i'm skeptical of all politicians and government officials... even 'Republicans'/ 'Conservatives'. Large Corporations ,especially Oil companies, have never impressed me with their "civic mindedness", "love of country" or love of humanity in the U.S. or abroad.
I didn't use to be this way but after years of disappointments from all sides it seems to me very logical NOT to trust them or to trust and WAIT for them to do wrong. Seems better to try to preemptively see what might be the dark areas they could move into.

Maybe you have some reason to trust Governments and Big Corporations CEOs. Reasons to blindly give Trump and all his appointees the full unqualified benefit of doubt that they all have perfectly good intentions and have never done wrong or been on the wrong side of an issue from your POV.

that's your right
I still agree with Reagan "trust but verify".
And even moreso with Jefferson and many founders when they talked about the "moneyed powers" becoming dominant over the people's gov't.